Skip to main content
Download PDF

Low cervical vertebral CT value increased early subsidence of titanium mesh cage after anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research volume 17, Article number: 355 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Study design

This study was a retrospective review.

Objective

To study the predictive effect of Hounsfield units (HU) value in the cervical vertebral body derived from computed tomography (CT) on the early titanium mesh cage (TMC) subsidence after anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF).

Methods

This retrospective study was conducted on patients who underwent ACCF at one institution between January 2014 and December 2018. We collected date included age, gender, body mass index (BMI), disease type, surgical segment, whether merge ACDF, HU value of the vertebral body and endplate, vertebral body height loss, cervical lordosis angle, and cervical sagittal alignment. VAS, JOA, and NDI were used to assess clinical efficacy. Univariate analysis was performed to screen the influencing factors of TMC subsidence, and then logistic regression was used to find out the independent risk factors. The ROC curve and area under curve (AUC) were used to analyze the HU value to predict the TMC subsidence.

Results

A total of 85 patients who accepted ACCF were included in this study, and early titanium mesh cage subsidence was demonstrated in 29 patients. The subsidence rate was 34.1%. The JOA, VAS, and NDI scores significantly improved in both groups after the operation. Between the subsidence and non-subsidence groups, there were significant differences in age, intervertebral distraction height, and HU value in both upper and lower vertebral body and endplate. The logistic regression analysis proved that the HU value of the lower vertebral body was an independent risk of TMC subsidence, the AUC was 0.866, and the most appropriate threshold of the HU value was 275 (sensitivity: 87.5%, specificity: 79.3%).

Conclusion

Preoperative cervical CT value is an independent correlative factor for early TMC subsidence after ACCF, and patients with a low CT value of the inferior vertebral body of the operative segment have a higher risk of TMC subsidence in the early postoperative period.

Trial registration: This study is undergoing retrospective registration.

Introduction

Anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) is a common surgical method for patients with degenerative cervical spinal diseases [1]. At present, a titanium mesh cage (TMC) with autogenous bone is the main choice of an interbody fusion device in ACCF [2, 3]. It has the advantages of sufficient decompression, good biocompatibility, high bone graft fusion rate, and immediate stability after surgery, and has good therapeutic effects [4,5,6]. However, there have been more and more reports on its complications, especially postoperative TMC subsidence, which results in changes in cervical curvature and vertebral height. In severe cases, it could cause neck and shoulder pain and aggravate the symptoms of spinal cord compression [7, 8]. Therefore, effective interventions to prevent TMC subsidence should be developed. The stability of TMC is related to the bone mineral density (BMD) of the cervical vertebral body, and the reduction of bone density will lead to a decrease in the bearing capacity of the cervical vertebral body, so patients with severe osteoporosis are prone to TMC subsidence [9].

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is currently the gold standard for measuring BMD and diagnosing osteoporosis [10]. However, preoperative DXA scans are not routinely obtained for patients with cervical spine degenerative diseases, and the BMD is measured in the lumbar spine, which cannot directly reflect the bone condition of the cervical spine [11,12,13]. As a bone quality assessment, the measurement of Hounsfield units (HU) value can be completed by computerized tomography (CT) examination, without additional imaging examination, and it is easy to obtain [14]. Several reports have shown that the HU value of the vertebral was closely related to BMD and could evaluate the risk of pedicle screw loosening and cage subsidence in lumbar spine surgery [15,16,17,18]. A few studies have evaluated the association between vertebral body HU value and cage subsidence after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) [19, 20]. However, the relationship between the HU value of the vertebral body and TMC subsidence in ACCF remains unclear.

In this study, we measured the HU value based on preoperative cervical CT in patients, analyzed the clinical and radiologic evaluation of TMC subsidence, and evaluated the relationship between cervical vertebral body HU value and TMC subsidence in the early stage after ACCF.

Methods

Patient population

This study was approved by the Ethical Committee of our hospital and each patient signed the informed consent. We reviewed patients undergoing ACCF by a single surgical team between January 2014 and December 2018 at our orthopedic department. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) a definite diagnosis of cervical spondylosis; (2) follow-up data for at least 12 months with radiographs; (3) accept ACCF surgery by the same team of spine surgeons; (4) patients with preoperative spine CT and X-ray within 1 week before surgery. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) patients with spine infection, spine tumor, spine trauma, and metabolic bone disease; (2) patients with endplate damage or incompleteness; (3) long-term use of hormones or combined with immune diseases; and (4) incomplete radiologic data or functional score data.

Patient and surgical factors

As potential contributing factors for TMC subsidence, we collected sex, age, BMI, diabetes, hypertension, coronary heart disease, and disease type. In addition to patient information, we collected data on the operation, such as surgical segment, merge ACDF, hospital stay, surgery time, and blood loss.

Surgical procedure

All operations were performed by the same surgical team. After anesthesia, the patient was placed in a supine position with mild hyperextension of the neck. A transverse incision was made anterior to the right neck, and the approach was made between the carotid sheath and the visceral sheath to expose the cervical spine. Determine the surgical segment by G-arm fluoroscopy, install a spacer, remove the nucleus pulposus and annulus fibrosus with a spatula, and remove the cartilage endplate to the point of bleeding. Part of the vertebral body of the responsible segment was removed to reach the dura mater, and the compression of the dura mater and the nerve root was completely relieved. After the distractor was released, the appropriate TMC was selected according to the scope of resection, filled with autologous cancellous bone fragments, and then implanted into the bone groove. The location of the cage was confirmed using G-arm fluoroscopy. Then, install a suitable length of a titanium plate in front of the cervical vertebral. The incision was rinsed, negative pressure drainage was placed, the incision was sutured layer by layer, and the operation was completed.

HU measurements

Before surgery, all the patients underwent three-dimensional reconstructive cervical CT (PHILIPS, Brilliance, tube voltage 120 kV). Then, the picture archiving and communication system (PACS) was used to calculate the HU value automatically. HU values were measured using CT scans according to a previously described method [14]. The endplate HU value was calculated as the region of interest (ROI) of the upper and lower endplate. The average HU values of each vertebral body based on the axial plane inferior only to the superior endplate, middle of the vertebral body, and axial plane superior only to the inferior endplate. The HU value was measured by placing the largest elliptical ROI at the vertebral body. The ROI was chosen to include as much trabecular bone as possible and to avoid cortical bone and heterogeneous areas, such as cortical bone margins, osteophytes, and osteosclerosis. The average of HU values calculated from the three ROIs was regarded as the HU for the individual vertebral body. (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Mid-sagittal (A) and axial CT images demonstrating the measurement of endplate (B) and vertebral body (C–E) HU value

Full size image

Measuring TMC subsidence

Lateral radiographs taken with the patient in a standing position were obtained before the operation, immediately after operation and within 3 months after surgery. Lateral X-ray were used to calculate the TMC subsidence, and early TMC subsidence was diagnosed when the loss of any height of the anterior or posterior edges of the vertebral body in the fusion segment was greater than 3 mm within 3 months after surgery compared with that immediately after operation [21, 22]. The patients were divided into 2 groups according to the subsidence (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Compare immediately (A) and within 3 months (B) after surgery at lateral X-ray to calculate the TMC subsidence

Full size image

Clinical assessment

Clinical parameters included the pain visual analog scale (VAS), Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA), and Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores. (1) VAS was an 11-point numeric rating scale ranging from zero (no pain) to ten (worst pain imaginable). (2) The JOA scale consisted of 3 categories: exercise, sensation, and bladder function. The total score was 17 points. (3) The NDI consisted of a 100-point scale. These are used both before surgery and after surgery. After discharge from the hospital, the patients had regular follow-ups conducted by the corresponding author.

Radiological assessment

Radiologic parameters on plain radiographs included the C2-7 Cobb angle (CA), segmental angle (SA), T1 slope, C2-7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA), total intervertebral height (TIH), and TMC slope. The CA was defined by the Cobb angle formed between the lower endplate of C2 and C7. The SA was defined as the angle between the borders of endplates above and below the affected segment. The T1 slope was defined as the angle between the extension of the upper endplate of the T1 vertebral body and the horizontal line. The SVA was defined as the distance between a vertical line from a vertical line in the center of the C2 vertebral body to the posterior superior corner of the C7 vertebral body. TIH was measured as the distance from the midpoint of the superior endplate of the upper vertebral body to the midpoint of the inferior endplate of the lower vertebral body spanning the fusion. The TMC slope was defined as the angle between the lower end face of the TMC and the upper end plate of the lower vertebral body. Intervertebral distraction height was defined as postoperative TIH minus preoperative TIH. All measurements were performed by two independent investigators (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Measurement of the preoperative (A) and postoperative (B) radiologic parameters. Included the C2-7 Cobb angle (CA), segmental angle (SA), T1 slope, C2-7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA), total intervertebral height (TIH), and TMC slope

Full size image

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS software (version 20, USA). After an agreement was reached between the observers, each parameter was independently measured twice by 2 orthopedic spine surgeons. Categorical variables are presented as absolute numbers and percentages, and continuous variables are presented as mean ± standard deviations. The Shapiro–Wilk test was used to verify the normal distribution of continuous variables. The independent sample t test was used for variables that followed a normal distribution. The Mann–Whitney U test was used for those not following normal distribution. Chi-squared test was used for categorical data (sex, Disease, surgical segment). Logistic regression analysis was used to identify the independent factors of TMC subsidence, and the results were presented as odds ratios (OR), with 95% confidence intervals. The receiver operating characteristics curve (ROC) was used to evaluate the value of predicting TMC subsidence, and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated. The most appropriate threshold (cutoff value) of HU with higher sensitivity and specificity was also established using the ROC curve. P < 0.05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference.

Results

Demographic characteristics

We reviewed 211 patients who underwent ACCF with a TMC between January 2014 and December 2018, and a total of 85 patients met the inclusion criteria (Fig. 4). All the patients were diagnosed and divided into subsidence group (29 patients, 34.1%) and non-subsidence group (56 patients, 65.9%). In the subsidence group, the subsidence range was 3.0–6.4 mm (3.57 ± 1.01), the subsidence segment occurred in 5 cases in C5, 16 cases in C6, and 8 cases in C7. TMC subsidence occurred in 18 patients at 1-month postoperative, 4 patients at 2-month postoperative, and 7 patients at 3-month postoperative. Postoperative lateral cervical X-ray was taken at 1 day and 1.2.3 months and the final follow-up after surgery. The mean patient age was 59.01 ± 7.97 years old (range 45–82 years), and compared with the non-subsidence group (57.54 ± 9.84), the subsidence group age (63.09 ± 8.49) was significantly higher (P = 0.012). But there were no significant differences in sex, BMI, diabetes, hypertension, coronary heart disease, disease type, surgical segment, merge ACDF, hospital stay, surgery time, and blood loss between the two groups (Table 1).

Fig. 4
figure 4

A flowchart of patients included in the study

Full size image
Table 1 Demographic and surgery characteristics
Full size table

Clinical outcomes

The JOA, VAS, and NDI scores significantly improved in both groups immediately after the operation, 3 months after the operation and at the final follow-up compared with preoperative. However, there were no significant differences in the JOA, VAS, and NDI scores between the two groups in preoperative, 3 months after the operation, and at the final follow-up (Table 2).

Table 2 Clinical parameters
Full size table

Radiological outcomes

Between the subsidence and non-subsidence groups, there were significant differences in the intervertebral distraction height (P = 0.006). But there was no difference in preoperative, postoperative, and 3 months after operation in CA, SA, SVA, T1 slope, and TMC slope and their change between the two groups (Table 3).

Table 3 Radiographic parameters
Full size table

HU values of vertebral body and endplate

The HU values of both the upper vertebral body and endplate and the lower vertebral body and endplate in the subsidence group were lower than those in the non-subsidence group (lower and upper vertebral HU value: P < 0.0001; HU values of lower and upper end plate: P = 0.004) (Table 4).

Table 4 HU values of the vertebral body and endplate
Full size table

Risk factors for subsidence

Univariate analysis showed that there were significant differences in age, intervertebral distraction height, HU value of upper and lower vertebral body and endplate between the subsidence and non-subsidence groups (P < 0.05). According to binary logistic regression analysis, independent risk factors were only HU value of the lower vertebral body (P = 0.008) (Table 5).

Table 5 Using binary logistic regression analysis to judge independent risk factors
Full size table

ROC curve analysis

Using independent risk factors, we performed a ROC curve analysis. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for the cutoff value (Table 6) and the area under the curve (AUC) (Fig. 5). The cutoff point was specified from the ROC curve using the optimal intersection of specificity and sensitivity. Based on the ROC curve, the cutoff point was 275 HU (sensitivity: 87.5%; specificity: 79.3%) at the lower vertebral body.

Table 6 Results of ROC analysis
Full size table
Fig. 5
figure 5

The ROC curves demonstrated that the areas under the curve (AUC) for HU value of lower vertebral body were 0.866 (P < 0.0001)

Full size image

Discussion

In this retrospective study, there were significant differences in age, Intervertebral distraction height, HU value of upper and lower vertebral body and endplate between the subsidence and non-subsidence groups. According to binary logistic regression analysis, the independent risk factor was HU value of the lower vertebral body, and the cutoff point was 275 HU (sensitivity: 87.5%; specificity: 79.3%). CT scans are routinely examined before ACCF, HU values may be used as a feasible predictor of the TMC subsidence after ACCF, which provides guidance for surgical planning.

Clinically, ACCF with TMC is widely used in the treatment of cervical degenerative disease, which has good clinical results. In our study, The JOA, VAS, and NDI scores significantly improved both in the subsidence and non-subsidence groups after operation. However, its shortcomings are becoming more and more obvious. TMC subsidence is the most important complication, such as broken screws and broken plates caused by the TMC subsidence. Therefore, it is particularly important to analyze the reasons for the TMC subsidence after surgery and how to take measures to prevent it. However, the measurement and standard of TMC subsidence have been controversial. Jon Bergen et al. [21] suggested that the postoperative intervertebral height decrease should be greater than 3 mm. Chen et al. [22] divided the subsidence of the titanium mesh into mild (1–3 mm) and severe (≥ 3 mm), and other studies have shown that about 80% of all patients with TMC subsidence occur within 3 months after surgery [23]. There are unavoidable errors in the process of imaging examination and measurement, and the error of setting the standard as 2 mm is relatively large. So in our study, we set the standard as the subsidence of the TMC measured by lateral cervical X-ray within 3 months was greater than 3 mm. A total of 29 occurred subsidence in our study, the subsidence rate was 34.1%, and the range was 3.0–6.4 mm.

TMC subsidence is presumed to be influenced by multiple factors. The potential risk factors consist of advanced age, osteoporosis, long segment, titanium mesh inclination angle, intervertebral distraction height, Sagittal imbalance, and so on [24, 25]. In our study, although there were significant differences in age between the two groups, patient age was not an independent risk factor. The reason may be that older patient always had lower BMD. Intervertebral distraction can restore the physiological curvature of the cervical spine and expand the area of the spinal canal. It is an important operation step in anterior cervical surgery. But many studies have reported excessive intervertebral distraction may cause the TMC to bear excessive intervertebral stress, leading to the occurrence of TMC subsidence [5]. Our study also suggested that there were significantly higher intervertebral distraction heights in subsidence groups. The old patients are often accompanied by osteoporosis, and among the risk factors for TMC subsidence, it is the most important. The loss of bone mass leads to a decreased bone density, destruction of trabecular bone structure, and a decreased in mechanical properties. Severe osteoporosis leads to stress fractures, screw loosening, and internal fixation failure after spinal surgery [26]. A biomechanical finite element analysis showed that with the increase in the degree of osteoporosis, the maximum stress on the upper and lower endplates of the fusion segment increased significantly, thus increasing the potential risk of implant subsidence [27]. In our study, the HU values of the upper and lower vertebral body and endplate in the subsidence group were significantly lower than those in the non-subsidence group, and those results indicate that BMD is a very important factor in TMC subsidence after ACCF.

The most commonly used parameter for the evaluation of BMD is DXA. DXA is an examination technique for two-dimensional measurement of BMD in areas such as the lumbar spine and hip joints, which cannot directly reflect the BMD of the cervical spine. However, when combined with degeneration, the bone density may increase due to abdominal aortic calcification, bone degeneration, fracture or osteophyte formation, etc., resulting in false negative results and missed diagnosis [13]. Moreover, DXA is not a routine inspection before cervical spine surgery. The BMD value of different vertebral bodies is significantly different. So DXA of the lumbar spine is not suitable for the cervical spine. Zou et al. [28] suggested that thresholds for osteoporosis based on HU values can be used as a complementary method to identify spinal osteoporosis in patients with lumbar degenerative diseases. At present, the use of conventional CT examination to measure vertebral HU value is gradually applied to the cervical spine, Lee et al. [19] found that the vertebral HU value can be a good alternative assessment to accurately reflect BMD in the cervical spine. Wang et al. [29] reported that lower preoperative HU values of the vertebral are associated with cage subsidence in single-level ACDF. Another study reported that lumbar BMD values were significantly correlated with cervical HU values; moreover, low HU values may lead to postoperative intervertebral height reduction [20].

There are many studies on the association between the low HU values and clinical effects in lumbar fusion surgery [17, 30,31,32]. However, clinical efforts to use HU values have been relatively limited in ACCF. In our study, the HU values of the upper and lower vertebral body and endplate in the subsidence group were significantly lower than those in the non-subsidence group, but only the HU value of the lower vertebral body was the independent risk factor for TMC subsidence. A biomechanical study shows that the compression resistance of the vertebrae is mainly borne by the cancellous bone. BMD of cancellous bone is more important for the assessment of bone quality [33]. The lower vertebral body bears more compressive stress, so the bone quality of the lower vertebral body has a greater impact on TMC subsidence. Cheng et al. [34] suggested that the extent of intervertebral space expansion, alignment of TMC, and poor BMD are the risk factors for subsidence. His results are similar to ours, but he measured the mean HU value of each vertebral body from C2 to C7. Since he did not take into account the effect of endplates, and ACCF surgery is often performed on the lower cervical spine, the HU value of the vertebral body adjacent to the surgical segment is more closely related to the subsidence of TMC. Moreover, a biomechanical study showed that overall mechanical strength and stiffness and HU in the superior endplate of the caudal vertebra were lower than those in the inferior endplate of the cranial in the same intervertebral disc. Because of the significant correlation between the cervical endplate HU and the mechanical properties of the endplate, a higher incidence of subsidence in the lower endplate was observed clinically [35]. We measured the HU value of the upper and lower vertebral body and endplate, included more BMD related factors, and concluded that the HU value of the lower vertebral body was an independent risk factor for TMC subsidence.

Some studies suggest that HU value measurement is a simple and rapid technique to assess bone quality. The range of HU values that are compatible with osteoporosis, and some studies have proposed different diagnostic thresholds values [36]. In our study, the HU value of the lower vertebral body based on the preoperative CT scan is a predictor factor of TMC subsidence after ACCF. According to the ROC curves, patients with a HU value < 275 at the lower vertebral of the surgical segment were likely to have TMC subsidence after ACCF. When performing ACCF, attention should be paid to the screening of risk factors for TMC subsidence in patients. Patients with severe osteoporosis and low bone density should choose this operation with caution. When surgical treatment is necessary, braces such as cervical collars should be worn for a long time after surgery, and it can limit the excessive activity of the cervical spine and decrease the occurrence of TMC subsidence.

This study has several limitations. First, this was a retrospective study, and the follow-up period was short. Second, this study included only 85 patients, limiting the ability of the multivariate analysis to identify statistically significant risk factors for subsidence. Third, while the present study identified the HUs of the lower vertebral body as a risk factor for subsidence, we did not conduct a DXA examination, which is no proven association between DXA and CT values in the present study. Finally, there may be errors in measuring TMC subsidence using lateral cervical spine radiography instead of CT, and we only study the early not the longtime relationship between TMC subsidence and function change in patients. Therefore, the results of this study should be interpreted with caution, and further research is required to confirm our findings.

Conclusions

In summary, patients with lower vertebral body HU values are at a significantly higher risk of TMC subsidence in the early postoperative period after ACCF. Surgeons should choose the surgical approach carefully and inform patients about the risk of postoperative TMC subsidence, especially those lower vertebral body’s HU value of less than 275.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Abbreviations

HU:

Hounsfield units

CT:

Computed tomography

TMC:

Titanium mesh cage

ACCF:

Anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion

BMD:

Bone mineral density

DXA:

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry

ACDF:

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

ROI:

Region of interest

PACS:

The picture archiving and communication system

VAS:

Visual analog scale

JOA:

Japanese Orthopedic Association

NDI:

Neck Disability Index

CA:

C2-7 Cobb angle

SA:

Segmental angle

SVA:

C2-7 sagittal vertical axis

TIH:

Total intervertebral height

References

  1. Badhiwala JH, Ahuja CS, Akbar MA, Witiw CD, Nassiri F, Furlan JC, et al. Degenerative cervical myelopathy—update and future directions. Nat Rev Neurol. 2020;16(2):108–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ouyang P, Lu T, He X, Gao Z, Cai X, Jin Z. Biomechanical comparison of integrated fixation cage versus anterior cervical plate and cage in anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF): a finite element analysis. Med Sci Monit. 2019;25:1489–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Shahzad Shams MJR. Anterior cervical reconstruction using titanium mesh cages. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2007;19(1):23–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chuang H-C, Cho D-Y, Chang C-S, Lee W-Y, Jung-Chung C, Lee H-C, et al. Efficacy and safety of the use of titanium mesh cages and anterior cervical plates for interbody fusion after anterior cervical corpectomy. Surg Neurol. 2006;65(5):464–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Wen Z, Lu T, Wang Y, Liang H, Gao Z, He X. Anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using titanium mesh cages for treatment of degenerative cervical pathologies: a literature review. Med Sci Monit. 2018;24:6398–404.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Sun KQ, Sun JC, Shi JG, Guo YF. Novel technique as a revision surgery for failed anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion in the treatment of cervical myelopathy due to ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. World Neurosurg. 2020;141:37–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hur JW, Ryu KS, Ahn S, Kim JS, Chung HJ, Song MS. Comparative analysis of 2 different types of titanium mesh cage for single-level anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion in terms of postoperative subsidence and sagittal alignment. Clin Spine Surg. 2020;33(1):E8–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fengbin Y, Jinhao M, Xinyuan L, Xinwei W, Yu C, Deyu C. Evaluation of a new type of titanium mesh cage versus the traditional titanium mesh cage for single-level, anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(12):2891–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hasegawa K, Abe M, Washio T, Hara T. An experimental study on the interface strength between titanium mesh cage and vertebra in reference to vertebral bone mineral density. Spine. 2001;26(8):957–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kanis JA. Diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk. Lancet. 2002;359(9321):1929–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Muraki S, Yamamoto S, Ishibashi H, Horiuchi T, Hosoi T, Orimo H, et al. Impact of degenerative spinal diseases on bone mineral density of the lumbar spine in elderly women. Osteoporos Int. 2004;15(9):724–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Pappou IP, Girardi FP, Sandhu HS, Parvataneni HK, Cammisa FP Jr, Schneider R, et al. Discordantly high spinal bone mineral density values in patients with adult lumbar scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(14):1614–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Zou D, Sun Z, Zhou S, Zhong W, Li W. Hounsfield units value is a better predictor of pedicle screw loosening than the T-score of DXA in patients with lumbar degenerative diseases. Eur Spine J. 2020;29(5):1105–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Schreiber JJ, Anderson PA, Rosas HG, Buchholz AL, Au AG. Hounsfield units for assessing bone mineral density and strength: a tool for osteoporosis management. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(11):1057–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Xu F, Zou D, Li W, Sun Z, Jiang S, Zhou S, et al. Hounsfield units of the vertebral body and pedicle as predictors of pedicle screw loosening after degenerative lumbar spine surgery. Neurosurg Focus. 2020;49(2):E10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mi J, Li K, Zhao X, Zhao CQ, Li H, Zhao J. Vertebral body hounsfield units are associated with cage subsidence after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral pedicle screw fixation. Clin Spine Surg. 2017;30(8):E1130–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ran L, Xie T, Zhao L, Huang S, Zeng J. Low Hounsfield units on computed tomography are associated with cage subsidence following oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF). Spine J. 2022;22:957–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Colantonio DF, Saxena SK, Vanier A, Rodkey D, Tintle S, Wagner SC. Cervical spine computed tomography Hounsfield units accurately predict low bone mineral density of the femoral neck. Clin Spine Surg. 2020;33(2):E58–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lee HJ, You ST, Kim JH, Kim IS, Sung JH, Hong JT. Significance of cervical spine computed tomography Hounsfield units to predict bone mineral density and the subsidence after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Clin Spine Surg. 2021;34(8):E450–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee JS, Son DW, Lee SH, Ki SS, Lee SW, Song GS, et al. The effect of Hounsfield unit value with conventional computed tomography and intraoperative distraction on postoperative intervertebral height reduction in patients following stand-alone anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2022;65(1):96–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. van Jonbergen HP, Spruit M, Anderson PG, Pavlov PW. Anterior cervical interbody fusion with a titanium box cage: early radiological assessment of fusion and subsidence. Spine J. 2005;5(6):645–9 (discussion 9).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Chen Y, Chen D, Guo Y, Wang X, Lu X, He Z, et al. Subsidence of titanium mesh cage: a study based on 300 cases. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008;21(7):489–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jinhai Kong GL, Yijun Kang, Bing Wang, Jing Li, Chao Wei, Mingxing Tang. Discussion on the causes of titanium mesh subsidence after anterior cervical titanium mesh grafting and fusion. Chin J Spinal Cord. 2007;(02):98–102.

  24. Jang JW, Lee JK, Lee JH, Hur H, Kim TW, Kim SH. Effect of posterior subsidence on cervical alignment after anterior cervical corpectomy and reconstruction using titanium mesh cages in degenerative cervical disease. J Clin Neurosci. 2014;21(10):1779–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Pinter ZW, Reed R, Townsley SE, Mikula AL, Dittman L, Xiong A, et al. Titanium cervical cage subsidence: postoperative computed tomography analysis defining incidence and associated risk factors. Glob Spine J. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682211046897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wang T, Zhao Y, Cai Z, Wang W, Xia Y, Zheng G, et al. Effect of osteoporosis on internal fixation after spinal osteotomy: a finite element analysis. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2019;69:178–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Wang Z, Ma R, Cai Z, Wang Z, Yang S, Ge Z. Biomechanical evaluation of stand-alone oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion under 3 different bone mineral density conditions: a finite element analysis. World Neurosurg. 2021;155:e285–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Zou D, Li W, Deng C, Du G, Xu N. The use of CT Hounsfield unit values to identify the undiagnosed spinal osteoporosis in patients with lumbar degenerative diseases. Eur Spine J. 2019;28(8):1758–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Wang M, Mummaneni PV, Xi Z, Chang CC, Rivera J, Guinn J, et al. Lower Hounsfield units on CT are associated with cage subsidence after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2020. https://doi.org/10.3171/2020.3.SPINE2035.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Wu H, Cheung JPY, Zhang T, Shan Z, Zhang X, Liu J, et al. The role of Hounsfield unit in intraoperative endplate violation and delayed cage subsidence with oblique lateral interbody fusion. Glob Spine J. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682211052515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Zhou J, Yuan C, Liu C, Zhou L, Wang J. Hounsfield unit value on CT as a predictor of cage subsidence following stand-alone oblique lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021;22(1):960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Jones C, Okano I, Salzmann SN, Reisener MJ, Chiapparelli E, Shue J, et al. Endplate volumetric bone mineral density is a predictor for cage subsidence following lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a risk factor analysis. Spine J. 2021;21(10):1729–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lin M, Paul R, Shapiro SZ, Doulgeris J, Oconnor TE, Tsai CT, et al. Biomechanical study of cervical endplate removal on subsidence and migration in multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Asian Spine J. 2022. https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2021.0424.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Ji C, Yu S, Yan N, Wang J, Hou F, Hou T, et al. Risk factors for subsidence of titanium mesh cage following single-level anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020;21(1):32.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Hara T, Ohara Y, Abe E, Takami K, Orias AAE, Arai H, et al. Cervical endplate bone density distribution measured by CT osteoabsorptiometry and direct comparison with mechanical properties of the endplate. Eur Spine J. 2021;30(9):2557–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Zaidi Q, Danisa OA, Cheng W. Measurement techniques and utility of hounsfield unit values for assessment of bone quality prior to spinal instrumentation: a review of current literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019;44(4):E239–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Third Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Shanxi Bethune Hospital, Shanxi Academy of Medical Sciences, Tongji Shanxi Hospital, Taiyuan, 030032, China

    Zhiqiang Wang, Chen Deng, Xuefeng Tian, Junqiao Lv & Lin Sun

  2. Department of orthopedics, Shanxi Bethune Hospital, Shanxi Academy of Medical Sciences, Tongji Shanxi Hospital, Third Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, 030032, China

    Jun Mei & Xiaoning Feng

  3. Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, China

    Jun Mei & Xiaoning Feng

Authors
  1. Zhiqiang Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jun Mei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xiaoning Feng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chen Deng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xuefeng Tian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Junqiao Lv
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Lin Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

ZQW and LS designed this study. JM and XNF performed review of electronic patient record. LS performed surgeries. XFT and JQL performed radiographic analysis. CD performed data analysis and interpretation. ZQW prepared the manuscript, tables, and figures. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lin Sun.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee of Shanxi Bethune Hospital (No: SBQKL-2022-112) and each patient signed the informed consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, Z., Mei, J., Feng, X. et al. Low cervical vertebral CT value increased early subsidence of titanium mesh cage after anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion. J Orthop Surg Res 17, 355 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-03239-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-03239-6

Keywords

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

ISSN: 1749-799X